CHAPTER 2: NATURE AND BRIEF HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

1. Queen v. Keyn [1876]

Lord Coleridge, CJ. defined “International law as the law of nations is that collection of
usages which civilized states have agreed to observe in their dealings with one another.”
2. S. S. Lotus Case. PCIJ Series A, No 10 [1927]
International law is defined as “the principle which are in force between all independent
nations.”
3. West and Central Gold Mining Co. Ltd v. King [1905] 2 KB 91
International law was defined as “the form of the rules accepted by civilized States as
determining their conduct towards each other and towards each other’s subject”

CHAPTER 3: INTERNATIONAL LAW BEFORE MUNICIPAL COURTS

4. Certain German Interest in Polish Upper Silesia, PCIJ, Series A, No 7 (1926)

It was held by the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) that although it was not
empowered to interpret Polis law, there was nothing to prevent it from giving judgment
on the question whether or not in applying that law, Poland is acting in conformity with
its obligation towards Germany under the Geneva Convention.
5. Germany v. USA (LaGrand case) [2001]
 The International Court of Justice (ICJ) accepted that the separation of powers and
competencies between federal and state courts and authorities in the USA was a
matter of domestic law.
 However, it emphasized that the effect of said separation on a country’s international
obligations was a matter of international law alone.
6. Buvot v Barbuit [1737] Cases Talbot 281
Lord Chancellor Talbot declared that “the law of nations, in its full extent is part of the
law of England.”
7. Chung Chi Cheung v. The King [1939] AC 160
 Facts:- The appellant (C), a British subject, who was cabin boy on board a Chinese
Maritime Customs cruiser – a foreign armed public ship – killed by shooting the
captain of the vessel, also a British subject in the service of the Chinese Government,
while the vessel was in the territorial waters of Hong Kong. C was arrested in Hong
Kong and, with extradition proceedings instituted by the Chinese authorities having
failed on the ground that the appellant was a British national, C was rearrested and
charged with murder before the British court. He was ultimately convicted and
sentenced to death, the acting chief officer and three of the crew of the Chinese
cruiser having given evidence for the prosecution at the trial. C brought an appeal,
alleging that the local British Court had no jurisdiction to try him.
 Held:- A public armed ship in foreign territorial waters is not to be treated as a part of
the territory of its own nation. The immunities which are generally accorded to a
foreign armed public ship and its crew do not depend upon an objective
exterritoriality but rather upon an implication of domestic law, and flow from a
waiver by a sovereign state of its full territorial jurisdiction. These immunities are
therefore conditional and can themselves be waived by the home nation. As the
Chinese government did not register a diplomatic request for the surrender of the
appellant after the failure of the extradition proceedings, and as members of their
service were subsequently granted permission to give evidence before the British
Court in aid of the prosecution, the jurisdiction of the British Court had been validly
exercised.
8. Re Keyn [1876]
 A German ship collided with and sank a British ship on the high seas resulting to the
death of passengers of British ship. The German captain was prosecuted for
manslaughter in England and the issue is whether British courts could exercise
extraterritorial jurisdiction over collisions taking place on the high seas as matter of
customary law.
 Cockburn CJ held that even it would change the relevant English jurisdictional rule
altogether, these changes could only come about by an Act of Parliament and not by
court’s recognition of a new customary law.
 Re Keyn does not means that customary rule requires an Act of Parliament for it
importation. Rather, it is a cautious judgement in respect of customary rule which, if
 automatically incorporated, would have changed British jurisdiction on the high seas
altogether which court not willing to allow it in its own accord.
9. Nulyarimma v. Thompson [2000, Australia]
10. R v. Jones (Margaret) [2007]